User talk:Black Kite/Archive 72

Frankfurt School article protection
Black Kite, I would propose that you revert the content of the Frankfurt School article to the stable version, pending discussion of the disputed material on the Talk page. I have given my reasoning there, but it amounts to (1) in a BRD cycle, the stable version is to remain in place pending discussion (except in cases of BRP violations or COPYVIO, which this is not), and (2) the recent Deletion review found that, while the Cultural Marxism article should remain deleted, sourced discussion of the issue is appropriately found on the Frankfurt School article. The removal of this content appears to have been contrary to the Deletion review finding even though the deletor cited the DR in one of their edit summaries for the deletion.

As I've said elsewhere, I don't have an axe to grind on the substantive issue (and the 2014 close was a good one, all things considered). But as a strong supporter of BRD as a procedural norm, it bothers me that you chose to protect the non-stable version of the article. Newimpartial (talk) 14:44, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I protected the current version of the article. Admins do not have a choice on this, unless the current version contains BLP violations, copyright violations, etc. See The Wrong Version. Black Kite (talk) 15:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It would only be contrary to deletion review if the content was sourced...it isn't. This is a classic tactic...an editor packs the sentence with "sources", and if you think that having citations is good enough to consider a sentence verifiable, then it would appear fine. Anyone that actually checks the sources, however, will realise that it's a ruse...the content at that article was not supported by the sources, and hence, the definition of 'unsourced'. You continue to defend unsourced content, across the encylopaedia, but you yourself have never sat down and actually explained what you think is "sourced" about it, while citing "Adorno" in your edit summary. What is your modus operandi here? RGloucester  — ☎ 15:51, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Can I suggest you raise this at WP:AN? I don't think I'd be comfortable with taking that action as I protected the article; I could be accused of being WP:INVOLVED. Black Kite (talk) 15:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand, given the circumstances. I appreciate your reply. RGloucester  — ☎ 16:40, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, frankly, Black Kite, you had the option of not protecting the page less than two hours after the content was removed (again) from the stable version, particularly since the only content issue happening at the time you protected the article was this question of whether or not to leave the stable version pending discussion. I understand from your protection comments that you felt that I acted inappropriately in maintaining the stable version pending discussion, but (1) I felt my edit summaries were accurate and complete on the grounds for doing so, namely BRD, and (2) the talk page discussion on this topic was buried in a discussion about the proposal to revivify Cultural Marxism; RGloucester had neither sought nor attained consensus to receive the content under dispute. As I had no settled opinion on this content, I saw the policy-compliant course as reverting on purely procedural grounds. I certainly see no need for protection under such circumstances (a single instance of 2RR). And while I am as appreciative of satire as anyone, I don't find it to be an especially powerful aid in the appropriate interpretation of policy. YMMV. Newimpartial (talk) 17:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * u|RGloucester, just because you and I disagree about the relevance of the cited sources to the content you insisted on removing without consensus does not make said content "unsourced". And your claim that I "continue to defend unsourced content, across the encylopaedia" is unCIVIL, untrue, without evidence, and entirely helpful. Please don't engage in personal attacks on an editor who is not on the "other side" from you except in one, fairly minor, largely procedural matter. Baby|bathwater. Newimpartial (talk) 17:53, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You cannot 'disagree'...you've provided no evidence to support whatever position you're taking, which is not surprising, given that there is no evidence. Instead, you're trying to throw a procedural spanner in the works to maintain unsourced OR hoax content...are you sure you are WP:HERE to build an encylopaedia? RGloucester  — ☎ 18:38, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I have provided said evidence on the article Talk page, which is the appropriate venue to discuss content. Here I would insist simply that you refrain from making any further personal attacks (are you sure you are WP:HERE to build an encylopaedia?, which is a question that can be neatly answered through even a casual perusal of my edit history, if it were anything other than a jibe) - we are all here to contribute to an encyclopaedia, I hope, and one of the cornerstones of that effort is WP:CIVIL. Newimpartial (talk) 18:46, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I learnt long ago that, when dealing with conspiracy theories, so-called 'civility' is nothing more than a cover for the propagation of those theories. Your evidence was not evidence of anything other than your ignorance...you cite sources you have not read to support assertions that are not found in those sources...that is not compatible with Wikipedia. If you continue, I will be suggesting administrative action. RGloucester  — ☎ 19:07, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Before doing that, you just might want to consider WP:CIVIL and WP:BOOMERANG. My impression thus far is that the noticeboards are less concerned with rectitude associated with the mastery of content and more concerned with appropriate behaviour. But YMMV.
 * And believe me, I know all about Civil POV pushing, FRINGE views and conspiracy theories from the receiving end. If you think promoting that behavior is what I'm doing, be prepared to think again. Newimpartial (talk) 19:36, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You don't fool me. I've been around the block more than a few times, and suffered for it. Keep thinking you're clever. RGloucester  — ☎ 19:53, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You may feel that there are cases where WP:AGF does not apply - and I might agree with you about that in an appropriate context - but this really is a case where it does apply completely. I am not kidding. You don't fool me is yet another personal attack. Please cut it out. Newimpartial (talk) 20:46, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Your arb request
I'm well aware that this isn't about blocking anyone, but I couldn't help but notice some parallels between 2012 and now. Floq's right though. You made the point about holding others to certain civility standards while engaging in uncivil rhetoric, you'll get neither a retraction nor an apology, but it's on record. There's nothing further to be gained here. MLauba (Talk) 17:45, 4 December 2018 (UTC) You do good work, and I appreciate standing on principle... but that case request is just going to get declined and make everyone more irritated at each other than they already were. 28bytes (talk) 19:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know. But I felt the point had to be made. Black Kite (talk) 18:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * At this rate everyone's going to recuse anyway. But what would be really good would be if Rob redacted his accusations against, well whoever they're aimed, and then I could withdraw the case myself... Black Kite (talk) 19:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * We've all been around the block and know that it won't happen. It's still worth calling out when it happens, in particular from people meant to lead by example. The defender of the wiki mentality lets people get away with a lot until the moment they take it too far (the other open arb request comes to mind here), or they have an a-ha moment. Rob went from new editor to admin, CU, BAG member and arb in what, 2 years? Not a lot of space for that a-ha to happen. MLauba (Talk) 22:29, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Nabi Tajima (2nd nomination)
Can you please change this to no consensus. We have found hard to prove that NOPAGE does not apply. We have provided numerous sources stating her lifestyle and gives her life significant coverage. The most important thing is that she is the third oldest person ever lived. I believe we can make a strong argument that top ten oldest people should have pages can you please reconsider. Also to note I counted the votes there was two socks MarkAQuinn in favor of deleting and Julia Kinsley in favor of keeping. Cunard provided sources which shows significant coverage was did not even get a chance to include Japanese sources. Valoem talk contrib 19:37, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I discarded MarkAQuinn. But I also discarded RightGot (look at the contribs), Vivexdino (contributes on Japanese subjects, and regardless just said "She's notable").  This leaves it 5-2 in favour of Delete.  If you'd like, I can drop the article back to Draft, where hopefully someone can add some notability to the article other than the age she reached. Black Kite (talk) 19:56, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This still makes things very difficult Cunard provided a list of sources based on arguments it should discounted all votes for delete because he showed the article passes WP:GNG. She both held the title of oldest living person before her death and is the third oldest person ever lived. These is certainly signs of notability. I fear if this is closed as a redirect it could be dangerous. I was going to open DRVs for Chiyo Miyako and Misao Okawa because I believe the minimum number of article should be kept for is the top ten oldest. If you could please change to no consensus I'll work on the article immediately. It would be a tremendous uphill struggle I hope you find this request reasonable. I understand your close, but I hope you can also understand where I am coming from. If you give me 48 hours I will added several sources. Valoem talk contrib 20:32, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You discarded one of the AfD participants for this reason: "Vivexdino (contributes on Japanese subjects, and regardless just said "She's notable")". I do not understand why "contributes on Japanese subjects" is a valid supporting reason to discard an editor's vote. Vivexdino is an established editor who contributes primarily to Japanese subjects. Vivexdino does not contribute on only Japanese supercentenarians, so Vivexdino is not a single-purpose account. In an American supercentenarian AfD or a British supercentenarian AfD, would you would discard an established editor for "contributes on American subjects" or "contributes to British subjects"? wrote, "This has been discussed before. Plenty of sources to cover notability". I agree that "This has been discussed before" is not a policy-based argument for retention. But "Plenty of sources to cover notability" is a policy-based argument for retention because Vivexdino reviewed the sources already present in the article and found them to be sufficient to establish notability. How is Vivexdino's argument just saying "She's notable"? One of the "delete" editors did just say "Not notable" without discussing the sources, but you did not discard that argument. Another was just a "per nom" argument but you did not discard that argument either. None of the "delete" participants addressed the international coverage in reliable sources I presented. I do not think your close accurately evaluates the consensus based on the strengths of the arguments. But for the reasons I discussed here, I will not be taking your close to DRV because past supercentenarian DRVs have been contentious and it is not a good use of time since readers will be well served regardless of whether Nabi Tajima's biography is in a standalone article at Nabi Tajima or is in a section at List of Japanese supercentenarians. Cunard (talk) 07:25, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I probably didn't phrase that well - but Vivexdino's comment is just WP:ITSNOTABLE - if you say "plenty of sources to show notability", given that the article basically only had sources to show that she was born, died, and was the oldest person, you're again effectively saying oldest=automatically notable, which of course was the issue that the AfD revolved around anyway. I think we're just going to get more of these issues unless some sort of notability guideline is thrashed out, to be honest.  Can I make a suggestion? (Pinging  as well - The article history is still there (I'm not sure why, presumably a glitch with XfDCloser), so if we can get some of those extra sources which you produced into it (probably best to do this in Draft) then I think you could make a very strong case for it to be restored. Black Kite (talk) 07:34, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I will do that I assume you have no problem if I add a few sources and restore it with a bit more on life so that db-repost does not apply. Valoem talk <b style="color: Green;">contrib</b> 08:15, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for explaining your thoughts further. I interpreted "plenty of sources to show notability" not as "oldest=automatically notable" because of the state of the article but as "plenty of sources to show she has received significant coverage in reliable sources as required by Notability". I wrote at another AfD, "to be notable, a supercentarian must have lives and deeds that were notable independently of their age" currently is not supported in any guidelines or policies. To make it a policy-based argument would require an RfC at a venue like Village pump (policy), like what currently is being done for school inclusion criteria. At Articles for deletion/Robert Young (longevity claims researcher) (2nd nomination) in 2015, I wrote an overview of Young's life and work. I included a strong notability assertion: "Carl Bialik of The Wall Street Journal wrote that Young's "work and that of other researchers' has helped to create a new branch of demography: Statistics about the world's best agers."" Despite this work, the article was redirected anyway. If that article was not a longevity topic, it likely would have been kept. Since then, I have not expanded longevity biographies. Given what happened with the Robert Young article, I don't think that further work on Nabi Tajima will change editors' minds. A recreation likely would result in another AfD that ends in "delete". My preferred approach is to merge to a section at List of Japanese supercentenarians so that this does not go to AfD again. I do not understand why longevity is so contentious of a topic. There is an arbitration case for it in 2010 (Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity). And two admin resignations related to longevity DRVs in 2018. In any case, thank you again for further explaining your close and letting me share my thoughts about this topic on your talk page. Cunard (talk) 08:58, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

DBX
Thank you for making a comment there. I am sure that DBX is clearly editing with POV across multiple subjects. See his recent creation of Pakistan administered Kashmir, which used to be a long term redirect. Qualitist (talk) 12:58, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Skanderbeg
Since the article is continuously disrupted by IPs, causing confusion and other problems, it would probably be of help if semi-protection was applied there after the full-protection expires. Btw, as you intervened in the dispute, it would be good if you politely asked FkpCascais to stop claiming that I and/or the other editor involved in the dispute are "punk", "newbie" and "colleague". Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:42, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's fair enough, and I will apply semi-protection after the FP expires, please ping me if I forget. Black Kite (talk) 23:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrator BU Rob13 at WP:ARCA
Hello Black Kite. The case request for arbitration, Arbitrator BU Rob13 at WP:ARCA, has been declined by the committee with many citing it "should be treated like any similar complaint, and other forms of dispute resolution pursued first." For the Arbitration Committee, <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 19:23, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Your revert at Law and Justice
Hi, regarding this, lack of removal rationale in an edit summary is not a justification for restoring bad edits. I kindly suggest you read the edit before undoing. Thanks, — kashmīrī  <sup style="font-family:Candara; color:#80F;">TALK  01:07, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Inappropriate Comment by admin JzG
Is this considered an appropriate comment by an admin nowadays? “Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script”. Also I do want to apologize for posting my issue about JzG in the wrong area but he was being very argumentative on his talk page. - SanAnMan (talk) 02:24, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * SanAnMan, you should never, ever take a content dispute to usertalk. Keep it on the talkpage of the article, always. You should never take a content dispute to ANI either. Keep it on article talk. Use some form of WP:DR if the discussion there gets stuck or unproductive. And if someone is edit-warring, the place to report that is WP:ANEW (after issuing them a brief warning on their talkpage). Hope that helps. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:28, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the advice Soft. So what would be the appropriate action to take for JzG's conduct unbecoming that of an admin, including his edit warring on the page and his uncivil comment toward me on his own talk page? - SanAnMan (talk) 13:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * He's not acting as an admin, and not using admin tools. If you follow the guidance I have outlined above, everything can be resolved, one way or another, via consensus and wiki processes. Softlavender (talk) 20:35, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Frankfurt School
Hi Black Kite. Someone at WP:RFPP pointed out that this page used to be indefinitely semiprotected, so I changed the protection to indefinite. If you disagree, please adjust. Note that one of the IP ranges being used was globally blocked for a year in July 2018 by User:Ruslik0. EdJohnston (talk) 17:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Special:Contributions/2606:6000:FD0A:FB00:F1FE:3779:9231:134A
 * Special:Contributions/2606:6000:FD0A:FB00:F1FE:3779:9231:134A
 * No, that's fine. Black Kite (talk) 20:13, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Skanderbeg protection
You asked me to remind you about semi-protecting the Skanderbeg article. After the full-protection expired, reverting has continued, and maybe will continue in the coming days. One editor continues to change the stable version although there is opposition to his proposal on the talk page and the editor was warned by you when you applied the full-protection. So a new full-protection might be needed. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 07:27, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm keeping an eye on it. Black Kite (talk) 20:02, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I filed a new report . Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:51, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Lodge Park Academy
You're were one step ahead of me. Sorry. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:04, 21 December 2018 (UTC) Any action required? Seems alright to me. Cheers. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:05, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No worries :) Black Kite (talk) 21:05, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the other IP for 31 hours. Don't see there should be any problem now.  Black Kite (talk) 21:05, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

12 years of editing
<div class="boilerplate metadata" id="SCOTW" style="background-color:#E6E6FA;border: 1px solid #7D00B3; margin: 0.5em; padding: 0.5em;width:90%;float:center"> Happy First Edit Day! Have a very happy first edit anniversary! From the Birthday Committee, Kpg  jhp  jm  01:24, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

yech, but
would it not be better to redact the decidedly detestable parts and keep the legitimately valid arguments?-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 15:31, 25 December 2018 (UTC) Belay my last. user now blocked by CU.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 15:36, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Austral season's greetings

 * And to you too! Black Kite (talk) 16:23, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi
I need to ask you a Q Kgm2019 (talk) 22:01, 5 January 2019 (UTC) (Kgm2019 (talk))is it possible to message you privately? —Preceding undated comment added 22:12, 5 January 2019 (UTC) (Kgm2019 (talk) 22:15, 5 January 2019 (UTC))is it possible to message you privately
 * Feel free. Black Kite (talk) 22:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Black kite
Plzz help me to create a page ...a talk page Kgm2019 (talk) 22:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I've asked about possible socking at User talk:Kgm2019. Cabayi (talk) 11:40, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Bit of a bother
Re: this it might be useful to link to the redlinks where the deleted edits lie? I've been able to find some of them, but it took me a while just clicking through. I normally don't mind, but because Alaa is involved and he can view them too (as a steward) it might make it easier for him since it isn't his home project or language, and also help other en.wiki admins click through. If it's too much work feel free to ignore me :) I'd normally add them myself in a separate post, but about to run out the door and I also didn't want to add too much. Hope all is well. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Tony, I'm literally about to run out of the door as well - got a birthday party to go to! I'll fix the links when I get home later, will be 3 or 4 hours. Black Kite (talk) 19:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Windsor Davies

 * I'm afraid this was posted in error, this is not the first time this kind of premature posting has happened in the past couple of weeks. Still a bunch of citations needed for this to avoid being a BLP minefield. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I was quite surprised when I saw this notification! Black Kite (talk) 23:20, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

2019 - people with insufficient notability
It is not your opinion to tell me what to do. You are not an admin either. I never added J.D. Gibbs after that. I only added Mason Lowe. Pretty soon it will be notable to add Mason Lowe or not. Matt Campbell (talk) 01:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think I saw the rules. Is there a page on it? Matt Campbell (talk) 01:29, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Does the Wikipedia:In the news/candidates article count? Because they post notable deaths on there as well. Matt Campbell (talk) 16:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Boo
Pretty soon we should add Boo to the list as soon as possible. Matt Campbell (talk) 00:09, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Also forgot to mention that you erased his name after I typed it in. Then you said "Seriously?" Matt Campbell (talk) 00:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)